“One of the associates told Ynet that the speech was ‘befitting,’ and that they were particularly pleased with Obama clarifications about considering the 1967 borders as the basis for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but not necessarily as the final ones.”

***
[S]ome Israeli media also asked if Netanyahu himself stoked an air of crisis.

Contrary to impressions that he was surprised by Obama’s speech [at the State Department on Thursday], reports on Sunday confirmed he was told over 24 hours ahead of time that Obama would propose a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, and had called Washington to try to get the president to change his mind and his text — without success.

When Obama went ahead, Netanyahu, who was about to board his flight to Washington, issued a strong statement rejecting the suggestion. Officials seemed taken aback and an aide, asked if Netanyahu had been forewarned, said: ‘No comment.’…

“In radio interviews on Sunday, … Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren on Sunday confirmed that Netanyahu was informed in advance. Asked by Israel Army Radio, ‘Why create a crisis?,’ Oren said: ‘We do not feel that there is a crisis. There are differences.’”

***
“George Mitchell, who stepped down as the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Middle East last week, said Sunday that President Obama’s call to base Israeli-Palestinian peace talks on pre-1967 borders is not a threat to Israel…

“‘A major objective of this initiative, among others, is to prevent a disaster for Israel from occurring at the United Nations General Assembly in September, when the Palestinians have said they will see a unilateral declaration of statehood,’ Mitchell said. “The president spoke out strongly against that. We oppose it. And the way to prevent that from occurring is to provide an alternative in direct negotiation that would foreclose or make not necessary that option.’”

***
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must accept U.S. President Obama’s vision for Mideast peace if talks with the Palestinian Authority are to resume, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Sunday…

“Speaking to the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA on Sunday, Erekat said that an Israeli acceptance of Obama’s guidelines was essential if stalled negotiations were to resume, saying that as far as the Palestinians were concerned peace talks ‘actually aim at realizing this [Obamas'] objective, the establishment of the independent Palestinian state with these borders, along with swap of territories.’”

***
“It’s no secret that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for a resolution that will predetermine the results of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on borders. He made clear in a New York Times op-ed this week that he will insist that member states recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 lines, meaning Israel’s boundaries before the Six Day War.

“Unfortunately, even President Barack Obama appears to have been influenced by this thinking. He asserted in a speech Thursday that Israel’s future borders with a Palestinian state ‘should be based on the 1967 lines,’ a position he tried to offset by offering ‘mutually agreed land swaps.’ Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule…

“If the borders between Israel and the Palestinians need to be negotiated, then what are the implications of a U.N. General Assembly resolution that states up front that those borders must be the 1967 lines? Some commentators assert that all Mr. Abbas wants to do is strengthen his hand in future negotiations with Israel, and that this does not contradict a negotiated peace. But is that really true? Why should Mr. Abbas ever negotiate with Israel if he can rely on the automatic majority of Third World countries at the U.N. General Assembly to back his positions on other points that are in dispute, like the future of Jerusalem, the refugee question, and security?”

***
“That was a deeply unwise speech Obama just gave to AIPAC. The president did not ask himself the first question of political speechmaking: Why am I saying this? Instead he surrendered to his personal exasperation with Benjamin Netanyahu, and escalated a confrontation he had every reason to de-ecalate.

“The president did not merely restate his view on the 1967 lines. He added extra emphasis on a worrying point that was implicit in his big Thursday speech on the Middle East: that the future Palestinian state will have exclusive responsibility for security arrangements within its territory. So, if a rocket is fired at Israel from the West Bank, it will be the security forces of the Palestinian state that will deal with it – or not. If Hezbollah intrudes into the West Bank it will be the security forces of the Palestinian state that will react – or not. And since those security forces are to be non-militarized, they may well lack the means even if they have the will.

“The speech left me wondering: if the president is prepared to state now, in advance, that he has a view on the territorial outcome of negotiations, why won’t he state now, in advance, that he has a view on Palestinian refugee claims? Why won’t he state a view in advance on the non-division of Jerusalem? The thing most important to the Palestinians is now the official position of the Obama administration. The concerns of Israel have either been rejected in advance (security within the future West Bank Palestinian state) or else left for negotiation.”

***
“Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what ’1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means.

“By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The problem is, the ‘palestinians’ don’t do ‘backpedal’. They are on a ratchet. Just as when little Bammie called for a freeze of settlements in areas not previously targeted by the palis, once he called for a pre-1967 border the palis jumped on it.

This is why the palis don’t come to an agreement, because they know that the next foolish Westerner will make them a better offer. We need to make it clear to them that future offers will be not as good, and every year the deal gets worse.

$ 3000.00?!?..No doubt you are feeling bad about it!..You are right about the too far behind part..Plus (1) AK coming from a turf background dirt being kicked in face might have caused his charge just enough to cause loss and (2) The hole he started his charge thru was late opening up (bad luck)..IMHO..:)

The muzzies wouldn’t give a rat’s patoot about the region if there weren’t Jews there. Dennis Miller once joked about the move to get Islamic nations more involved in NASA, “The Islamists will be interested in the moon when there are Jews living there.”

Yeah, Johnny Velasquez said that he was shying away from the kick-back a little. He didn’t have that in the KD because he was placed a little more outside. And yes, he did have to wait behind a wall of horses while JV found a lane to get through.

Yep. I had the trifecta and superfecta if AK wins. I keyed him on top of five others. And get this…the six horses that I used in my tri-super combo finished in the first six positions. And I got $40 out of it. A -$70 for the race:(

Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

Shackleford, AK, and Dialed In are all 50-50. No news about any new shooters yet. Alternation won the Peter Pan at Belmont, I think. Some trainers use that as a Belmont prep, but I’m not sure at this point. It’s three weeks off, so the commitments and possibles will start to trickle in starting in the next 8-10 days I would think.

He seems to be saying that since mutually agreed upon swaps will determine the borders, the start point for negotiations is largely irrelevant. If that’s the case, why not make the start point the post-war lines?

Although he would never admit it, he knows full well it’s a difference of essential consequence. The start point determines who has the upper hand in the negotiations. It determines which party will be asking for most of the concessions and which party will be granting them. Regardless of what the Israeli’s say publicly, I can’t imagine they will acquiesce to this.

So the president’s absurd declaration about 1967 borders is off the table. In fact, the table is gone. Israel can wait out the 20 months left to Obama’s presidency, or even 48 months if American voters insanely choose to experiment with epic incompetence at the top for another term. Israel isn’t going back to the Auschwitz borders, and only a naive and inexperienced academic would think that Thursday’s speech would do other than worsen prospects for a negotiated settlement.

Netanyahu’s take-down of the president should be on the TiVo of Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman (and, yes, Rick Perry if what I have been hearing is true). One of those men will be standing opposite the president in the debates of September and October of 2012, and Netanyahu showed exactly how to respond to the prolixities and pauses of the teleprompter-dependent president.

First, let the president talk, and talk, and talk. (And talk.) His frequent rhetorical cul-de-sacs numb the minds of listeners and set up the opportunity for sharp contrasts between the definitive and the ambiguous, the purposeful and the feckless.

Second, look right at him when responding. This so unnerved President Obama that his anger and frustration was visible. Whether he brought the sense of superiority to the White House or whether it erupted there, the president does not care for people who challenge him directly, cannot seem to believe that anyone would have the temerity to do so. This is the sign of a deep insecurity, and Netanyahu used it.

Netanyahu showed a worldwide audience that purposefulness can be as polite as it is pointed, and that Obama has a glass jaw. A clenched glass jaw, but a glass jaw nonetheless.

On Thursday, teh Won was pro Palestinians. On Friday, Bibi called and he folded. On Sunday at AIPAC, he lied. In between, LSM did the centrifuge thing. (Flinging the heavy bits father than the light ones.)

AIPAC had applause in the right places. Politeness or relief or Kool Aid? The usual suspects proclaim satisfaction. But Bibi speaks Monday then Tuesday to a joint session of Congress. Joe Wilson will be there on Tuesday and I betcha he applauds. Shall we apply the Rush criterion then?

And not a single quote about Obama’s insistence that the Palestinian state be contiguous, thus slicing Israel into two- and in the process handing the Palestinians land that is currently occupied by Israelis?

Netanyahu showed exactly how to respond to the prolixities and pauses of the teleprompter-dependent president.

As a teacher of some thousands of student over my many years, I can assure you that teaching and learning are two distinct entities – and those names you feel will be up against the wily and unconscionable would-be messiah, appear to students that would never understand that it’s okay sometimes to “run with scissors.”

Candidate’s Report Card: too timid, too cautious, too Republican, too eager to get along with classmates in the other room, too satisfied with themselves,too worried about the weather (always checking the wind direction), unwilling to mix it up with the other teams on the playground, too concerned with neatness and appearance, too, well, too unteachable!

As a teacher of some thousands of student over my many years, I can assure you that teaching and learning are two distinct entities

Don L on May 23, 2011 at 5:11 AM

Don L:An excellent point,and on this Middle East President
ClusterFark,Obama’s Preachs/Speechs,he is sending a
chrystal clear message,that Obama is on their side,
and has a track-record of throwing Israel,under the
bus!!

All of the information about Obama seems not to exist,
but does leave a Marxist/Socialist/Progressive learn
ed warped teachings of who he associated with,and it
should be clear to all,

“‘A major objective of this initiative, among others, is to prevent a disaster for Israel from occurring at the United Nations General Assembly in September, when the Palestinians have said they will see a unilateral declaration of statehood,’ Mitchell said. “The president spoke out strongly against that. We oppose it. And the way to prevent that from occurring is to provide an alternative in direct negotiation that would foreclose or make not necessary that option.’”

What insanity…

If you want a Nation you need have land that is not claimed by anyone else and have a population on it that wishes to form a State. Then the State utilizes the powers granted to it so as to have discourse with other Nations at the status of a Nation.

The Palestinians could have done that in 1948.

When control was ceded by the British that was it: no matter what the UN declared as ‘borders’ it was land that had no State nor Nation upon it. The Israeli’s didn’t ask ‘permission’ to form a State and Nation, they just went ahead and did so. There is no formal ‘routine’ for doing this so long as it includes a declaration of government, what the borders are, how the system is run and who does what with respect to outside actors in the form of Nations. During the Lebanese Civil War you could find mini-States in neighborhoods with their own charters and ruling groups and a few ingenious ones made their own flags and uniforms. If folks in the midst of a Civil War only a few years into it can figure this out, then what is wrong with the Palestinians?

I’m sorry, Mr. Mitchell, but that is no horror you are describing, the self-declared Nation-State, it is the usual process of affairs. The transnational elite wanted a different process… notice the amount of blood spilled to now get back to square one and do it the right way? The Palestinians aren’t ‘victims’ they are idiots for not doing it the right way and giving the finger to the transnational elite. All you need is one or two other Nations to accept diplomatic relations and you get a form of ‘legitimacy’ and ‘standing’ amongst your brother Nations.

Is that so very hard to understand?

Simple, neat, easy and when you declare war on a neighbor you can LOSE with honor and grace. Its almost like that idea horrifies the Palestinians….

This is why the palis don’t come to an agreement, because they know that the next foolish Westerner will make them a better offer. We need to make it clear to them that future offers will be not as good, and every year the deal gets worse.

slickwillie2001 on May 22, 2011 at 10:56 PM

True – but this will not happen unless we can make the future of Israel a specific issue in the 2012 campaign. The only potential Republican candidate I can see doing that is Sarah Palin. None of the others have said much about Israel.